2024-02-20 BELA Meeting Notes
Attendees (please add your name):
Magda Zacharska Amanda Ros Jennifer Eustis Kimie Kester Kim Wiljanen
Note Taker:
Meeting Recording:
- Recording and chat: https://recordings.openlibraryfoundation.org/folio/bulk-edit-working-group
Discussion:
Topic | Notes | |
---|---|---|
1 | Housekeeping
| Notes: Jennifer Eustis |
2 | Quesnelia release update |
|
3 | Bulk edit Instance notes |
In the use cases, there is a need mentioned to update instance notes without a specific use case. What would be the most common use case to update the notes in the bibliographic records? Sometimes we have to delete notes, edit notes for maintenance/consistency. Often it's the same thing that will be changed in each note or for a certain note type. Some notes have specific punctuation or that need to be formatted in a specific way. +1 to this in terms of fixing notes for mistakes. We have also had to delete or adding notes. Another institution would have difficult updating notes as these need to be expressed in srs marc with particular subfields. The survey showed that support for srs marc records is needed. Proposed implementation will be to have 2 types of editing, one for marc srs and one for folio instances. For marc srs, bulk edit changes will propagate to Inventory according to the existing mappings. For FOLIO instances, the behavior will be the same for items and holdings. In Actions, you'll see 2 actions: one for FOLIO and another for MARC instances. This makes sense. What about the administrative note? If you have a source=marc and want to update the administrative note, then you would select FOLIO instances. Would it make sense to have MARC bibliographic rather than MARC instances? This language would reflect what we have in Inventory. This can be confusing but FOLIO is confusing when it comes to srs marc and folio instances. For the srs marc bulk edit, the title at the top indicates MARC rather than FOLIO and there are fields, subfields, and actions. Right now, the implementation is limited to 5XX and 9XX. What about repeating fields and subfields? It would be good to limit this for the moment as we can work out challenges slowly. There are no objections. However, Stanford has notes in the 795 field. The 795 will be included. Are there other exceptions? None were identified by the group. For blank indicators, slashes are good visuals. Add: this adds the field to all the records. Find: Search for the data specified, then action to remove, replace, append. Having an info icon like the one next the field label for "Find" would be useful to understand that the find is an exact match. You could say "Find exact match". Is it possible to remove just the subfield rather than the entire field? You could remove the subfield and then add the one you want. There should be an option to remove field entirely or just subfield. Append is adding a subfield to an existing field. To insert or add more data, you use Find and Replace. What happens when you want to add one field and 3 different subfields? The bulk edit now will join these together to create one. If you needed two fields with those 3 subfields, you would need to run the job twice. Some institutions add multiple notes to marc bibliographic records such as 590s. We need to consider how to handle repeatable fields in one job. Does it make sense to also be able to download instances records when editing marc srs bib records? No need. Where would we get the marc records? When you click, the marc file will be downloaded to your machine. This will also appear in the logs and use the action menu to download files. |
4 | Bulk edit queries - follow up from Slack chat | Bulk Edit Queries Examples |